Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/13/1997 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS • THURSDAY,MARCH 13, 1997 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chair Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye, William Ford, Louis Giglio, Matthew Hansen, Corrine Lynch STAFF LIAISON: Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson and City Recorder Barbara Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Louis Giglio,Matthew Hansen,Corrine Lynch CALL TO ORDER Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Board members Giglio, Hansen, and Lynch were absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Dunham,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 1997 MEETING Dunham noted a correction to the Minutes on Page 2, first paragraph, where the Name Foot appeared. MOTION: Dunham moved, seconded by Dye,to approve the Minutes of the January 9, 1997 Meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as corrected. Motion carried 4-0. III. VARIANCES A. RRe uest#97-02 by Fuddruckers for 11825 Technology Drive to (1)Raise existing Pylon sign from 20' to 30' in height (Code maximum is 20'), and (2) relocate the east wall sign to a.part of the parapet which is not a continuous height around the building. Darren B. Lazan, Principal Engineer with Landform Engineering Company, introduced Steve Haviland, General Manager of Fuddruckers, Inc. Lazan gave an overview of the • history of the site and the development of the Fuddruckers restaurants. The hardship is that the restaurant is only doing about 55% of average sales and they believe this is because of the inability of the public to get into the site from the surrounding roadways BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES March 13, 1997 • Page 2 because of a lack of visibility of the pylon sign. He described the height of the proposed parapet sign which they believe will give the restaurant more visibility from the adjacent roadways. The surrounding grades are significantly higher than the sign which causes visibility problems for the restaurant. The higher sign would give people time to get into the proper lanes to make the turn into the restaurant. Dye inquired if the sign were a blinking sign if that would increase visibility and Lazan responded that blinking signs were prohibited by City Code. Dunham asked if the difficulty in recognizing the location was from any particular direction, and Haviland responded that they were experiencing a good lunch business from people who work in the area but the difficulty is experienced during the dinner hour because it is difficult to see the sign in time to make the turn into the restaurant. Visibility issues were discussed and the restaurant's reliance on drive-by traffic. The issue of whether visibility was considered at the time the restaurant was built was raised, and Lazan responded they had hoped that the business would be great enough so they would not have to come back to get a variance for the sign height. This has not been the case and they feel that the higher sign will help the restaurant stay in business. Nelson asked if they have considered using edge lighting along the roofline of the . building, which is permitted by the Code. Haviland responded that they had not known this would be permitted,but they would look into it. Johnson gave the staff report and noted that the proponents have limited wall signage and they may be able to add some more signage. Staff recommended if the Board approved the variance for the height of the pylon sign that a stipulation be added that no additional free-standing signs be allowed. If the wall sign is lowered 3' from the requested location,it would be a conforming sign and would not require a variance. Lazan responded that if they bring the wall sign down three feet on the parapet wall which provides screening for the mechanical equipment on the roof, visibility would be reduced. Discussion ensued regarding the possible location for the wall sign in relation to the adjacent walls and the roofline. The significance of the elevation of the pylon sign versus the raising of the wall sign was discussed. Dunham asked if the proponent was allowed another free-standing sign, and Johnson responded affirmatively, noting that it would have to be located 20 feet from the right-of-way of the roadway and the grades are so steep it would not get them more visibility. The Public Hearing was opened. Michael O'Leary introduced himself as the new Board Member who would take office at the next meeting, and asked if there was anything in the ordinance which would give ithe proponents some leeway in the instance of topography contributing to the lack of visibility. Johnson responded negatively. The Public Hearing was closed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES March 13, 1997 Page 3 Dye commented he had no objection to increasing the height of the pylon sign, but he believed the wall sign would not bring much increased visibility and it should remain where it is presently located. Ford commented he concurred with Board member Dye, but felt approval of the wall sign relocation would be precedent-setting and he did not support that portion of the request. Dunham concurred as did Nelson, who noted that she believed the addition of roof-line lighting would increase visibility for the proponents. MOTION: Ford moved, seconded by Dye, to approve Variance Request 97-02 for Fuddrucker's to allow the height of the pylon sign to be 30 feet and deny the request for the relocation of the wall sign. Motion carried 4-0. Lazan inquired if they could request approval for a larger pylon sign at that meeting and Johnson responded that the Board could not consider unpublished requests. B. Request 97 03 by City of Eden Prairie for 8020 Den Road(northwest corner of Den Road and West 78th Street) for approval to construct 9 parking stalls ranging from 34' to 23' from the front properly line along West 78th Street (Code requires a 35 foot setbackl. Don Uram, Assistant Finance Director for the City of Eden Prairie, stated that the Liquor Store operations fall under the jurisdiction of the Finance Department. He requested that the Board approve the request for the additional parking spaces because potential tenants for the other half of the building have expressed concern about the limited amount of parking close to the front of the building. They have a prospective tenant that has a great need for short-term parking, and both the video rental business and the liquor store business have a high turnover rate so they are trying to obtain more parking spaces to facilitate this. The impact on adjacent properties will be minimal because the site faces West 78th Street. The parking spaces will be screened. He was requesting the additional spaces which were eliminated by City Code from the original plans. The liquor store operation will occupy the north side of the building which contains 6,000 square feet and the video business would occupy the southern portion which was approximately 7,000 square feet. Dunham inquired why they were proposing to have only one entrance into the building and Uram responded that prospective tenants have inquired why the parking stalls stop at that particular location(closest to building), and the prospective video store business wants to have 45 spaces to use for their business. Dunham commented he believed the City should have known what they were getting into and because this was a new building they should have planned accordingly and worked within the site area initially. He did not believe that financial constraints of the City were adequate hardship to grant a variance. Nelson inquired how he intended to keep the parking spaces for each use separate and Uram responded that they could be signed for ten minute parking,but that doesn't really work. People will park close to where they want to go. Discussion ensued regarding BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES March 13, 1997 Page 4 how the plan could be modified to gain more parking. Johnson gave the staff report and reviewed the original site plan request. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Dunham stated he did not see a hardship, particularly since the tenant was only a prospective tenant, and the intersection was a busy one and green space was needed in this area. He did not support the variance. Ford stated that the variance request seemed premature as the space in the liquor store building has not been rented. Uram stated that they could have built more building on the site than they did,but the hardship was created by the shape of the lot and the curve of the roadway. They have adequate area on the site for green space. Any improvements they need to have made for the tenant can be done more inexpensively at this stage of the construction rather than have the contractor come back later on to make alterations. The City will do more landscaping and usually builds more than the ordinance requires because everyone looks at what the City does. They have two landscape architects on staff who can recommend flowering shrubs which can be included in the landscape plan. The plantings will be on the berm which is located 35 feet from the street plus the right-of-way area. The berm will be 4 feet higher than the parking stalls. Nelson commented that she would be in favor of some nice plantings along the berm and giving up some green space. She stated she would support a modified variance which would give the proponent six additional parking spaces instead of nine stalls. Ford asked if the parking variance would cause problems because it was a corner lot, and Johnson responded that there are other sites that have smaller setbacks on one side than the other because they are corner lots. An example is Cub Foods which has parking 17.5' from Den Road. Staff looks at the property and tries to be consistent with what is already in place in the area. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Nelson,to approve Variance Request 97-03 for the City of Eden Prairie at 8018-8010 Den Road to permit construction of the westerly six parking stalls on the 78th Street Side because the curve of the road creates a hardship by prohibiting the construction of more parking spaces. Discussion: Dunham commented he did not believe it was a good idea to approve the variance and it could be precedent setting because the building could have been designed to fit on the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES March 13, 1997 Page 5 site with all the parking they need. He did not believe it set a good example for everyone else and since the road was there before the building was built, he did not believe it created a hardship. Ford stated he concurred that it was not good for the City to request a variance from its own Code. He felt that the request was premature as there was no lease signed by a tenant, and there may not be a hardship depending on the eventual tenant that occupies the space. The City should adhere to the same standards as everyone else. He could support six parking spaces,but he would feel better if they had a signed lease before they made the request. Nelson commented that tenants change in commercial properties from time to time and she did not believe a 7 foot variance was too large a variance to grant, as other similar small variances had been granted in the past throughout the community as their needs have changed over time. It seemed more appropriate to do all the construction at once rather than having to re-do something later on. Question called. Motion carried 3-1. Dunham voted no. IV. OLD BUSINESS Johnson stated that the Tower and Antenna ordinance draft would be mailed to the Board members shortly and it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in April. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson stated there are two items which will be on the agenda for next month. Nelson stated that there will be a joint meeting with the City Council on March 18, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. and she requested all the Board members to attend if possible. The new members will be sworn in at the next meeting. Johnson inquired if the Board would like to elect officers at the next meeting, and after discussion, it was requested that item be placed on the agenda at the end of the meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Dunham,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.